We'll I managed to squeeze out an additional 2.9hp and 3.7tq over last years numbers.
Same dyno and wheels/tires so the results are valid.


Lot of work for little return IMO. Ground wires and new ECU going on next. 200fwhp/220fwtq seems so far away still. Making 25% over stock with bolt-on's is really tough.

Last year's dyno with G-force pulls

 

How are you Brian ?

Hey this set of pulls, how close ( - or + ) are they to the pulls you did on the Mustang dyno at SP ? I seem to recall they were fairly close on, but I wanted to be sure, so I may compare (or correct) my 190whp put down on SP's dyno to a standard Dynojet 248.

The no tq reading really sucked, but what are you gonna do right, and $20 for couple pulls and sim'd 1/4 mile is not bad at all.

The words mouthed by the younger of the two guys (dude who strapped it up) after my Max ran the 14.50 at 95.5. mph on the roller, "that auto hauls *** !" , made it all better.

Too bad about the low turnout, maybe next time.

 

I haven't had a chance to swing by APG yet. I've got all my paperwork with me. I grabbed outside temp & baro off weather.com and figured STD vs SAE on a spreadsheet. Guessing SAE is 4.6% lower which makes no sense to me. That would put my APG runs at 178/188 which is 3% lower than last year on the same dyno. I'll try to swing by APG tomorrow.

 

Fernando. Ran by APG today and got the baseline info. My first pulls were done at 61deg, at 29.7hg. That means my SAE were 4.6% less than STD measurements (matches the formulas).

After adjusting the eddy to correct vehicle weight on my car, the Mustang dyno was reading 6.6% higher than the dynojet.

Ok, somethings amiss. Actually I think the APG dyno is reporting low. Their software is from 2001 and he kept complaining about needing to upgrade it. Twice now we couldn't save the data to a floppy in .drf format for me to review more.

I'm VERY unhappy I may have lost 6hp and 5tq after dropping another $800.

 

Correction. My STD->SAE formula was wrong. I had realtive barometric not absolute figured in.

SAE was 2.0% lower than STD. Mustang was reading an avg of 3.8% higher than the Dynojet. (+3.6% HP, +4% tq).

This is closer to the margin of error between devices AND possible incorrect weight load on the Mustang.
Your 190hp SP reading would've been 183hp on the Dynojet.

Here's a rare case where the Mustang is higher than the Dynojet.

 

First time I have seen that be the case. Brian, can you figure out what my torque number should be ? Im sorta paranoid about the tq #, and I just need verification. There is probably a formula where you can apply the hp, but I will defer to you on this matter.

Thanks